The value of my life

[nontacitare]

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/health/story/1337124.html

If I'd followed this advice I'd be dead now. My cancer was caught by a base-line mammogram when I was 39.

The scientific analysis also found that to save one woman's life, 1,904 women need to

Comments

[wishesofastar]

Ugh, that's awful. Isn't that the same logic that brought the Ford Pinto to market?

[nontacitare]

Isn't that the same logic that brought the Ford Pinto to market?

I don't think I know that story. What brought the Ford Pinto to market?

[wishesofastar]

The Ford Pinto was a death trap. They manufactured it knowing that the gas tank could easily explode and kill people, and produced the car for years knowing this. Their cost benefit analysis determined that the loss in human life wasn't worth the dollar amount to change the problem sooner. It's pretty damned disgusting.

[rfunk]

I just heard about this on the radio, and had the same thought about you.

Then they mentioned the part about "does not apply to women at high risk". I think that would've included you, because of all the risk factors you've identified before. So you'd still have gotten checked and be alive now.

[nontacitare]

they mentioned the part about "does not apply to women at high risk". I think that would've included you,

Except that I wasn't high risk at the time. High risk means having had cancer before or having one of the known genetic mutations. The only risk factor I had in my 30s was a mother who'd had breast cancer when she was 43. Since 85% of breast cancers are not related to genetics, it wasn't even enough to get me genetically tested. The current standards, which saved my life, are an annual mammogram starting at 40 or 10 years prior to the initial diagnosis of breast cancer in a mother or sister

[rfunk]

What I heard on the radio was something along the lines of "no other risk factors." Family history is a risk factor. And apparently the specific recommendation says, "Note these recommendations are intended for those who do not have signs or symptoms, or family history of breast cancer." Your mother's previous cancer specifically eliminates you from the majority who they're saying shouldn't worry about it until 50.

[nontacitare]

"Note these recommendations are intended for those who do not have signs or symptoms, or family history of breast cancer."

Fair enough. I missed the bit about family history in the article I read.

However, my mom's first cancer was caught by her baseline mammogram, and that was well before she was 50. In fact, a fair number of women with breast cancer learn about it either from self-exams or their first mammogram. And it's known that mammograms detect breast cancer and save lives of 30 and 40 something women, even if they also detect non-cancerous lumps.

There is no decent medical reason for preventing women from getting mammograms before age 50.

[anonymous]

From what I understood, there was discussion about "emotional cost" as well, to women who were scared of having cancer and found a lump. . . which seemed like saying that women weren't capable of dealing with stress.

Now, if they had linked suicide rates relating to stress caused by early mammograms in excess of the number of women saved, or offered a study that said that mammograms don't catch cancer in a majority of cases, I might be able to understand where they are coming from. But this, I don't get.

At least the American Cancer Society plans to continue to insist that mammograms are needed and should be done as they have been.

Perhaps more disturbing was the assertion that women should not do self-breast exams, as well, because it might "worry" women who find lumps unnecessarily.

I understand that a major issue with controlling health care costs is a large number of "unneeded" procedures, but I don't think that mammograms fall under that category.

damnit

[chronarchy]

That was me, not logged in, apparently.

[nontacitare]

From what I understood, there was discussion about "emotional cost" as well, to women who were scared of having cancer and found a lump. . . which seemed like saying that women weren't capable of dealing with stress.

Exactly. There was something else about the report that bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thank you for expressing it.